Borys Wrzesnewskyj

[Criminal Code, May 7th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking and transplanting human organs and other body parts).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill.

There is a horrific underground industry in the trafficking of human organs and body parts, victimizing the most vulnerable in developing countries and totalitarian regimes. This harrowing and depraved industry is a consequence of three global trends coinciding during the last decade: first, the development of medical technology, allowing the inexpensive transplantation of virtually any body organ; second, the immense increase in global income disparities between the rich and powerful and the poor and vulnerable; and finally, easy and accessible travel by wealthy westerners to any corner of the globe.

Last year, Canada became associated with this repugnant trade when news broke about the million dollar business of “Dr. Horror” and his Canadian connections, a doctor who illegally harvested the kidneys of some 500 poor labourers in New Delhi, India.

A spotlight was also placed on the illegal harvesting of organs of prisoners of conscience in China's penal system in the 2007 Matas-Kilgour report entitled “Bloody Harvest: Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China”.

By enacting this legislation, Canada will become an international leader in combatting the sinister underground trade in human organs and body parts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, May 6th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda.

The bill seeks to expand the definition of “identifiable group” under hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by gender.

Currently the law states that it is prohibited to propagate hate against an individual because of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. However, it is not against the law to propagate hate against individuals because of their gender.

By enacting this important improvement to the Criminal Code, Parliament can begin to address the serious issue of promoting hatred and violence against women or men.

This amendment should have been made long ago. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues on all sides of this House will support this long overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Petitions, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by over 40 constituents who remain very concerned that the government may proceed to deport the Tabaj family to Albania. This family fled to Canada after an assassination attempt on the life of Mr. Arjan Tabaj. During this assassination attempt, two other people were machine-gunned to death. Since the perpetrators still remain at large in Albania, the deportation of Mr. Tabaj, his wife, Anilda, and their three children back to that country would place in jeopardy the lives of this family.

As a result, the petitioners urge the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to allow the Tabaj family to remain in safety here in Canada.

[Visa Requirement, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that after three long years of informing, petitioning and cajoling the Conservative government, my Motion No. 247 and its previous version, Motion No. 99, calling on the government to lift visitor visa requirements for Croatia was finally implemented.

Twenty years ago, the Iron Curtain came down, and two days ago Canada's visa curtain around Croatia came down as well. It is immensely gratifying that this Easter will be the first that families and friends from Croatia will be able to visit their loved ones in Canada and all it will take is the purchase of an airline ticket.

It is rare for the contents of an opposition private member's motion to be adopted in its entirety by the government, and I am proud that for the second time the Conservative government has seen fit to implement one of my motions.

I am humbled by the support I received in the thousands of communications and petitions from individuals belonging to Croatian Canadian parishes and organizations from across Canada. Together we were many and we made it happen.

[March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. It is clear on searching the websites that what I have stated in fact is correct. There have been cuts. They were referenced by staff at the embassy. The hon. member spoke of visitor visas. I have been talking about immigration and the time that it takes for immigration.

Ukrainians began arriving in Canada in the 1890s. They transformed the west into the golden wheat fields of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They not only helped build this country, but they also built institutions such as schools and churches throughout our great country.

The minister often talks about the integration of new Canadians. This is a community that can seamlessly integrate new immigrants. The government should put resources into the immigration section so that we can get on with the job.

[March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on March 4, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration why the Conservative government had cut staffing levels by one-third in the immigration section at the Kyiv Embassy in Ukraine in 2006. The minister, in typical fashion, did not answer the question. However, the following morning he put out a press release under the title, “MP Misleads Ukrainian Canadians About Immigration From Ukraine”.

Further down, he writes the facts. I will quote the minister's press release. He says:

since mid-2006, there have been no reductions in staffing in the visa section of the Canadian Embassy in Ukraine.

Unfortunately for the minister, a search of the Internet shows that the cuts did in fact occur under the Conservative government's watch in 2006. They were confirmed by Canadian embassy program officer, Inna Tsarkova, who stated in an October 26, 2006 interview in the Kyiv Post:

In the immigration section of the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv, this review and adjustment resulted in the elimination of one immigration officer position and two clerical/support positions -- a registry supervisor and a cashier. This was a one-third reduction of staff in the immigration section.

Under the title, “The Facts”, in his press release, he goes on to state, “Under our Conservative government there has been an increase in emigration from Ukraine”.

Once again, in a search on the Internet, on the minister's very own departmental website under “Statistics and Facts” is a table with the heading, “Permanent Residents From Ukraine By Year”. It starts in 1998 and goes through to 2007. For the Liberal years, from 1998 to 2005, the average was 2,933. In 2006 and 2007, under the Conservatives and after the one-third cut that the minister denied in a press release having taken place, it was 2,025. That is a 44.8% decrease.

How could the minister have claimed that there were no cuts in staff and that there was an increase in immigration when the facts clearly demonstrate that the reverse is true?

Even worse, as one goes through the Citizenship and Immigration website, one finds the following. In Kyiv, what is the waiting time for 80% of cases to be finalized for skilled workers to immigrate to Canada? The worst in the world. The waiting time has gone up from 34 months under the Liberals to 77 months, six and a half years. The processing time for spouses is the worst in Europe. This has gone from 10 months to 14 months under the Conservatives. Let us do another reality check. The waiting time for dependent children went from eight months to thirteen months and parental reunification went from 17 months to 22 months.

The minister's response in the House to my question and the subsequent press release should not only be taken with a great deal of skepticism, it was inaccurate in its wording. What the minister claims as fact was clearly false. The minister should spend less time attacking his parliamentary colleagues and expend his time and resources fixing the situation in the embassy in Kyiv.

[Petitions, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the upsetting responsibility to present a petition signed by over 800 disappointed constituents, and counting, who are disillusioned by the decision of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deport Lioubomir and Olha Nalesnik .

Since fleeing Ukraine in 1994 for security reasons Mr. and Mrs. Nalesnik have contributed positively to Canadian society by working continuously through this period, paying their taxes and volunteering in our local community, exactly the type of new Canadians our country needs.

Consequently the petitioners urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to reverse his decision to deport Mr. and Mrs. Nalesnik. They have established roots, built new lives in Canada, and made a positive contribution to society during their 15 years here.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to expand a little on the stop-loss. Quite correctly, people call this a back door draft.

Phil McDowell was graduating from university and was not aware of the jeopardy he put himself into by signing on and volunteering. First, there was the disillusionment of the president claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction and that was the reason for this war. He arrived in Iraq and realized that this was not true. When he did his tour of duty and came back, the military went after him to do another tour of duty. This is a well-educated young man. Unfortunately, many of the recruiters used by the U.S. military—

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary began by referencing rules. We are the elected representatives chosen by the people of Canada to enact legislation and laws, to vote on motions and to reflect the will of Canadians, and that occurred. It is the minority government that has not respected the will of Canadians through their elected representatives. It is fundamentally undemocratic. Even worse, it undermines the very institution of the House of Commons.

I agree that when Parliament expresses its will, we should subscribe to the results of a majority vote. The government has chosen not to do that, which is most unfortunate.

He then said that this was an emotional issue. Sometimes, existing rules come together in a way that, in particular circumstances, requires our discretion—

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a history, one could call it a legacy, of providing sanctuary to those in the United States who, for reasons of principle, make that difficult decision to leave their homeland and come up north to Canada. We could go back to the era of the Loyalists, or the Underground Railroad which funnelled slaves to freedom in Canada.

In the modern era we have the example of the Vietnam war. Some 50,000 Vietnam war draft dodgers came up to Canada, found sanctuary and began new lives. We welcomed them. At the same time, approximately 5,000 active duty soldiers, many of them volunteers, after having done a tour of duty in Vietnam and having seen the reality of that war, also made the decision to come up to Canada. They did not come up as draft dodgers. They were active duty soldiers and Vietnam war resisters.

Currently there are approximately 200 Iraq war resisters in our country. On June 3, 2008, Parliament reaffirmed the Canadian legacy of providing sanctuary. We reaffirmed it by a majority vote. The motion reads in part:

[T]he government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada--

Throughout Canada's history, there has always been a minority within the country who do not agree with providing sanctuary. There was a minority who did not agree with allowing the Loyalists and slaves in. During the Vietnam war there was a minority who did not like the idea of allowing the draft dodgers to stay. We have always allowed them to remain and have provided them with the opportunity to stay in Canada. We reaffirmed it.

Polling has shown two-thirds of Canadians would like the Iraq war resisters to be given the opportunity to stay in Canada. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the will of the majority of Canadians, Parliament and the House of Commons, in this particular case the minority Conservative government has decided it will deport the resisters.

In fact, within a month of the House of Commons expressing its will to allow them to stay, the government provided the Bush administration with a present. On July 4, an American holiday, the government began proceedings against the first Iraq war resister to be deported, Mr. Robin Long. Mr. Long applied to the Federal Court to not be deported. When his case was heard, Federal Court justice Anne Mactavish decided that irreparable harm would not be caused should the young man be deported.

Based on all the statistics she would have had in front of her, that seemed to be a correct decision. Only 10% of soldiers who go AWOL end up charged in the United States. Of those 10%, the vast majority receive very minor sentences of six to eight months.

I will give an example of the type of justice the U.S. military metes out in military courts. First infantry division soldier Belmor Ramos was sentenced to seven months after being convicted of conspiracy to commit the murder of four Iraqi men. In 2007 he stood guard while others blindfolded and shot in the head four unidentified men, and afterwards dumped their bodies in a Baghdad canal. During his court martial, Ramos admitted his guilt, stating, “I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification to do this”. He got seven months.

Only 10% of those going AWOL end up charged. In that extremely serious case involving murder, there was a seven month sentence. Justice Mactavish quite reasonably deduced that irreparable harm would not be caused.

What happened? Mr. Long was deported. During his trial only one piece of evidence was presented. It was a CBC interview. The prosecution produced a CBC interview where he spoke out against the Iraq war. He received a 15 month sentence. That was 15 months for a young man of 25, a young father with a three-year-old Canadian born child. He should be with his son during the formative years. Quite clearly, the U.S. military justice system has caused irreparable harm to Mr. Robin Long.

What is even more disturbing is that in January of this year the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration publicly stated to the media that these people are not Iraq war resisters, that they are strictly deserters.

There are two problems with that statement. The first one is, the minister is supposed to have an arm's length relationship with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Decisions before the board should not be prejudged by the very minister who appoints and reappoints the board members. All those decisions of the board are now under a cloud. Even worse, before publicly making this proclamation, I question whether or not the minister actually sat down with these Iraq war resisters to hear their stories. The minister may not have, but in December I did.

I sat down with Iraq war resister Kimberly Rivera, a young mother of three, including a four-month-old Canadian born child. Kimberly was a volunteer, a patriotic American. She believed her president when he said there were weapons of mass destruction. However, upon arriving in Iraq, she became aware of a different reality. She told me that she saw the personal destruction of civilians' property and homes, the death of civilians, the shell-shocked small Iraqi children.

When she came back on leave, she made the difficult decision for a patriotic American, to uproot her family and come to Canada seeking sanctuary. She is quite clearly a conscientious objector. She is in jeopardy of being deported, and we know what kind of justice is being meted out by the U.S. military for those who speak out against the war in Iraq in Canada.

Why would we put this young mother of three children in a situation of jeopardy of this sort? Why would we separate her from her four-month-old Canadian born infant and put this young mother in prison for having made the principled decision not to be an agent in this particular war?

Let me also give the case of Phil McDowell. He was in Ottawa yesterday and I spoke with him briefly. He was in his senior year in university majoring in information technology. After 9/11 he volunteered. He served in Iraq from March 2004 to March 2005. He did his duty. He was disillusioned in the same way that Kimberly was disillusioned, but then he was called up again because of stop-loss, what many call forced deployment, a backdoor draft.

Parliament has expressed its will by majority. Let us not undermine the will of Parliament. Let us stop these deportations.